Jump to content
The Education Forum

Proof the FBI Changed Documents


Pat Speer
 Share

Recommended Posts

With help from Jack White, Gary Shaw, Paul Hoch, and Rex Bradford, I've written an essay on the conflicting documents first uncovered by Shaw. While it answers a few questions, it raises quite a few others.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Pat I thought I would point this out to you and others if interested (in reference to FBI documents and information being withheld by them and others:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

"...Hot Checks? I don't think so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XXXX I want to thank you for the work you have put into pulling all this together... I know it was no easy task:

I would like to point out something which is in my FBI files in reference to "hot checks". I hope the documents come out on the attachments below.

"... http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/ar...50&relPageId=2

FBI file generated by SAC in Cincinnati indicates

Tosh was arrested in Columbus, Ohio on Jan. 29, 1959 for passing a forged check at Morehouse Fashions. (Wrong)

The FBI prepared a dossier on him indicating he was born in Panama City, FL on 11-25-37; father was William W. Plumlee of Dallas, TX and mother Margaret J. Morgan of 3509 Lexington in Dallas. He had two half brothers (Morgan) and left high school in 10th grade and completed school in Army. He was married, had two sons and a daughter and divorced in 1958...".

It seems years ago when some got hold of these documents, they failed to include all of them which made reference:

#1 ".... he (Plumlee ) was arrested in Columbus Ohio by local authorities attempting to pass a forged check at Morehouse Fashions..."..

(ref; attatchments) (wrong) (reference FBI file)

#2 ".. when Mr. Plumlee was arrested by Customs he had a plane load of guns bound for Cuba and was turned over to local authorities...".

(ref; attatchmenmts) (right) (reference FBI file)

#3 " ... the FBI Lab could not find any checks written which could be attributed to Plumlee...". (ref; attatchments) (right)

(reference FBI file).

Point #4 There has never been an arrest record found in Columbus Ohio at the Columbus County Workhouse, referencing Plumlee. Why did the FBI report I was being held there? (right)

Another interesting point I feel should be brought forward is: When the files went to MF, why was only the one document included in the record... and that one being that I wrote (forged) hot checks in Columbus Ohio. And the other FBI documents were omitted?

Those documents, clearly stated: #1“no checks could be found written by Plumlee, #2 When I was arrested by Customs, I was turned over to "local Authorities. # "3... nochecks could be found written by Plumlee..".These other pages were not included with the material? Why?

Also, after all these years... Why has the record not been reported right or corrected?

Why has the other supporting documentation not been brought forward and included within the complete document file which is found, today on the 'Mary Ferrel" website?

Why is it still being reported today, to the research comunity, that I passed "hot" forged checks in Columbus Ohio in 1959?... when in fact the complete FBI documentation state otherwise

Now from my point of view. Why was the arrest in Columbus not reported right? What would be the motive?

The record established by the FBI during that time was; I had written bad checks and that is why I was arrested in Columbus and too, they went into a very long report of why I was in Columbus Jail when in fact I had been flying guns into Cuba and later (Feb 59) training with the army at the "Jungle Warfare Training Center (JWTC) in Hawaii.

I have pointed this out to many researchers over the years, but they have had their our theories and it would fit better for them for me to be just a little peney check writter, while in fact, I had been (in reality) flying guns to Fidel Castro's Revolution in 1958 and 1959 before he arrived in Havana.

I hope some here will take the time to read this stuff instead of taking the governments false report and somebodys "gossip" as facts without investigating the material. This is one reason I do not trust very many researchers and government offcials. The record is not accurate and factual as the federal documentation indicates

[Would anybody care to coment on this information after they have read the attatchments?]

Again XXXX thanks for your time and dedication toward the truth. It is much appreciated by me..... Tosh

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by William Plumlee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Pat, for a typically well thought out and reasoned piece of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice research, Pat. However, you give me too much credit in this episode. All that I did was to

essentially write down and publish in TCI what Gary Shaw told me. He furnished me the documents

and told he his opinion. I concurred with his opinion. One thing he did not tell me was WHEN he

found the documents. I mistakenly assumed it had been very recently, but as your research

shows, it was quite a while previous to his giving them to me.

As your article sums up nicely, whatever the truth is, SOMETHING very suspicious was going on

and people very high up scrambled to cover up something of significance though whatever means

necessary, making all such documentation suspect.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice research, Pat. However, you give me too much credit in this episode. All that I did was to

essentially write down and publish in TCI what Gary Shaw told me. He furnished me the documents

and told he his opinion. I concurred with his opinion. One thing he did not tell me was WHEN he

found the documents. I mistakenly assumed it had been very recently, but as your research

shows, it was quite a while previous to his giving them to me.

As your article sums up nicely, whatever the truth is, SOMETHING very suspicious was going on

and people very high up scrambled to cover up something of significance though whatever means

necessary, making all such documentation suspect.

Jack

Yes, Pat, Very nice and to the point.

My only critique is the continued references to Bugliosi.

As Glenn Sample has also done nicely, it is important that we respond to the likes of Posner and Bugliosi, and Bohning when and where ever they appear, and continue to harp on their mistakes and false conclusions, but I think in matters such as this, they should be left out of it as it only gives them some credence.

Although Bugliosi, having slung shots at almost everyone (How did I get left out?), provides the framework for discussion, I think it is time that, rather than using them as a frame, the evidence itself should be the focus and the people's representatives in the Congress should set the frame and be required to hold the mandated hearings on the JFK Act.

While such hearings would not re-investigate the assassination (as a Grand Jury would), even one oversight hearing on the JFK Act would call attention to this very type of record, and the FBI should have to be put on the hot seat and answer questions about it.

Of course years went by before Shaw showed it to Jack, and more years have gone by without any oversight hearings on these records, but now that the Democrats have control of both the Executive and Legislative branches of government, and are fishing around for something to hold hearings on, the oversight of the JFK Act has been waiting on deck now for decades, and now's the time for them.

Of course the FBI, the Secret Service and the CIA all have serious issues that such oversight hearings would involve, and they are in opposition to it, it only takes one person to call such a hearing - the new chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Information Policy, the NARA and Census. If anyone could sit down with him for ten minutes, and show him those conflicting FBI documents, and tell him the SS destroyed records when the ARRB asked for them, and the CIA still refuses to open the Joannides DRE documents, and there are hundreds of documents (hundreds of thousands of pages) of JFK assassination related records still being withheld until 2017, then maybe he too will get mad and schedule an oversight hearing on the JFK Act, as should have been done long ago.

And then, rather than an internet forum, there will be a real legal venue to address all of the document and records issues.

Sorry I keep harping on this, but I have to.

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...